



BMWG                                                         F. Calabria
Internet-Draft                                                     Cisco
Intended status: Informational                              C. Pignataro
Expires: 30 August 2026                             Blue Fern Consulting
                                                                   Q. Wu
                                                             G. Fioccola
                                                                  Huawei
                                                        26 February 2026


        Benchmarking Methodology for AI Training Network Fabrics
            draft-calabria-bmwg-ai-fabric-training-bench-00

Abstract

   This document defines benchmarking terminology, methodologies, and
   Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for evaluating Ethernet-based AI
   training network fabrics.

   As large-scale distributed AI/ML training clusters grow to tens of
   thousands of accelerators (GPUs/XPUs), the backend network fabric
   becomes the critical bottleneck determining job completion time
   (JCT), training throughput, and accelerator utilization.

   This document establishes vendor-independent, reproducible test
   procedures for benchmarking fabric-level performance under realistic
   AI training workloads, covering RDMA/RoCEv2 transport, the Ultra
   Ethernet Transport (UET) protocol defined by the UEC Specification
   1.0 [UEC-1.0], congestion management (PFC, ECN, DCQCN, CBFC), load
   balancing strategies (ECMP, DLB, packet spraying), collective
   communication patterns (AllReduce, AlltoAll, AllGather), and scale/
   soak testing.

   The methodology enables apples-to-apples comparison across different
   switch ASICs, vendor implementations, NIC transport stacks (RoCEv2
   vs. UET), and fabric architectures (2-tier Clos, 3-tier Clos, rail-
   optimized).

About This Document

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   The latest revision of this draft can be found at
   https://fcalabri.github.io/bmwg-ai-fabric-training-bench/draft-
   calabria-bmwg-ai-fabric-training-bench.html.  Status information for
   this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-
   calabria-bmwg-ai-fabric-training-bench/.




Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


   Discussion of this document takes place on the BMWG Working Group
   mailing list (mailto:bmwg@ietf.org), which is archived at
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bmwg/.  Subscribe at
   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/fcalabri/bmwg-ai-fabric-training-bench.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 30 August 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.2.  Scope and Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.3.  Relationship to Existing BMWG Work  . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  Test Topology and Architecture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.1.  Reference Fabric Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8



Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


       3.1.1.  Topology A: 2-Tier Clos (Leaf-Spine)  . . . . . . . .   9
       3.1.2.  Topology B: 3-Tier Clos (Leaf-Spine-Superspine) . . .   9
       3.1.3.  Topology C: Rail-Optimized  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.2.  Device Under Test (DUT) Identification  . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.3.  Traffic Generator Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       3.3.1.  Mandatory Functional Capabilities . . . . . . . . . .  11
       3.3.2.  Minimum Measurement Accuracy Requirements . . . . . .  11
       3.3.3.  Acceptable Implementations  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   4.  KPI Framework and Metrics Taxonomy  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.1.  Primary KPIs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.2.  Secondary KPIs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.3.  Fabric Health Indicators  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.  Test Category 1: RDMA Transport Benchmarks  . . . . . . . . .  14
     5.1.  Baseline Throughput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     5.2.  Latency Characterization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.3.  Back-to-Back Burst Absorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   6.  Test Category 1A: UEC Transport Protocol Benchmarks . . . . .  16
     6.1.  UET Throughput by Transport Service . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     6.2.  UET Latency Characterization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     6.3.  Packet Spray Efficacy Under UET RUD . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     6.4.  UET Congestion Control Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     6.5.  Link Layer Enhancement Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     6.6.  UET Collective Communication Performance  . . . . . . . .  19
     6.7.  UET PDC Scalability and Connection Setup Rate . . . . . .  20
   7.  Test Category 2: Congestion Management  . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     7.1.  ECN Marking Accuracy and Threshold  . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     7.2.  PFC Behavior Under Incast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     7.3.  DCQCN Convergence Time  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     7.4.  PFC Storm and Deadlock Resilience . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   8.  Test Category 3: Load Balancing Efficacy  . . . . . . . . . .  21
     8.1.  ECMP Entropy and Polarization . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     8.2.  Dynamic Load Balancing (Flowlet)  . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     8.3.  Packet Spraying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     8.4.  Jain Fairness Index Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   9.  Test Category 4: Collective Communication Benchmarks  . . . .  22
     9.1.  AllReduce Benchmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     9.2.  AlltoAll Benchmark  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     9.3.  AllGather Benchmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     9.4.  Collective Communication Library Bus Bandwidth Summary  .  23
   10. Test Category 5: Job Completion Time (JCT) Benchmarks . . . .  24
     10.1.  Synthetic JCT Under Controlled Conditions  . . . . . . .  24
     10.2.  MLPerf-Aligned JCT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     10.3.  Multi-Tenant JCT Interference  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   11. Test Category 6: Scale and Convergence  . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     11.1.  Fabric Scale Limits  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     11.2.  Link Failure Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     11.3.  Zero-Impact Failover Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   12. Test Category 7: Soak and Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26



Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


     12.1.  24-Hour Sustained Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     12.2.  Resource Leak Detection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   13. Reporting Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   15. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   16. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     16.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
     16.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   Appendix A.  KPI-to-Test Mapping Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   Appendix B.  ASIC Feature Categories (Informational)  . . . . . .  33
   Appendix C.  RoCEv2 Test Frame Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
   Appendix D.  UET (Ultra Ethernet Transport) Frame Format  . . . .  35
     D.1.  Key Differences from RoCEv2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38

1.  Introduction

   The rapid growth of distributed AI/ML training workloads has
   fundamentally changed the performance requirements for data center
   network fabrics.  Unlike traditional data center traffic
   characterized by diverse flow sizes and protocols, AI training
   workloads generate highly synchronized, bandwidth-intensive, east-
   west traffic patterns dominated by collective communication
   operations (AllReduce, AlltoAll, AllGather).  These workloads impose
   unique demands: lossless transport (via RoCEv2 over RDMA), ultra-low
   tail latency, near-perfect load balancing across all fabric paths,
   and the ability to absorb coordinated micro-bursts from thousands of
   accelerators simultaneously.

   Existing BMWG methodologies, while foundational, do not adequately
   address the characteristics of AI training fabrics.  [RFC2544]
   defines benchmarking for general network interconnect devices but
   does not account for RDMA transport semantics, collective
   communication patterns, or the unique congestion dynamics of GPU-to-
   GPU traffic.  [RFC8238] and [RFC8239] establish data center
   benchmarking terminology and methodology but predate the AI fabric
   paradigm and do not address RoCEv2-specific behaviors such as
   Priority Flow Control (PFC) interactions, DCQCN congestion control
   convergence [DCQCN-PAPER], or the impact of load balancing strategies
   on Job Completion Time (JCT).  Industry experience deploying RoCEv2
   at scale [META-ROCE] further highlights the need for standardized
   benchmarking methodology.

   The EVPN benchmarking methodology [EVPN-BENCH] provides a structural
   template for service-oriented benchmarking but is scoped to L2VPN
   services rather than RDMA fabrics.




Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


   This document fills the gap by defining a comprehensive benchmarking
   methodology specifically designed for AI training network fabrics.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

1.2.  Scope and Applicability

   This document applies to Ethernet-based AI training backend network
   fabrics employing RoCEv2 and/or UEC Ultra Ethernet Transport (UET)
   protocols.  The scope includes leaf-spine (2-tier Clos) and leaf-
   spine-superspine (3-tier Clos) topologies.

   InfiniBand fabrics are explicitly *out of scope*, though many KPIs
   defined herein may be adapted for IB benchmarking by future
   documents.  The DUT is the network fabric itself (the collection of
   switches and interconnecting links), not individual accelerators or
   host NICs, though host-side configuration MUST be documented as it
   materially affects results.

   The methodology is designed for controlled laboratory environments
   per the BMWG charter; it is NOT intended for production network
   measurement.

1.3.  Relationship to Existing BMWG Work

    +=============+===================================================+
    | Document    | Relationship                                      |
    +=============+===================================================+
    | [RFC1242]   | Base terminology for network benchmarking; terms  |
    |             | reused herein                                     |
    +-------------+---------------------------------------------------+
    | [RFC2544]   | Base methodology; throughput/latency/loss tests   |
    |             | adapted for RDMA                                  |
    +-------------+---------------------------------------------------+
    | [RFC2889]   | LAN switching methodology; MAC learning concepts  |
    |             | adapted for ARP/ND scale                          |
    +-------------+---------------------------------------------------+
    | [RFC8238]   | Data center terminology; buffer, congestion, and  |
    |             | microburst terms extended                         |
    +-------------+---------------------------------------------------+
    | [RFC8239]   | Data center methodology; line-rate and buffer     |
    |             | tests adapted for RoCEv2                          |



Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


    +-------------+---------------------------------------------------+
    | [RFC9004]   | Back-to-back frame updates; burst absorption      |
    |             | methodology referenced                            |
    +-------------+---------------------------------------------------+
    | [LLM-BENCH] | Complementary document benchmarking the inference |
    |             | serving stack.  Treats the network as opaque SUT. |
    |             | This document benchmarks the fabric itself.  The  |
    |             | two documents MAY be used together but MUST NOT   |
    |             | be combined in a single benchmarking report       |
    |             | without explicit section demarcation.             |
    +-------------+---------------------------------------------------+
    | [UEC-1.0]   | UET protocol specification; transport services,   |
    |             | congestion control, and link-layer enhancements   |
    |             | benchmarked in Section 6                          |
    +-------------+---------------------------------------------------+

                Table 1: Relationship to Existing BMWG Work

2.  Terminology and Definitions

   The following terms are defined for use in this document.  Where a
   term overlaps with [RFC1242] or [RFC8238], the definition herein
   takes precedence in the context of AI fabric benchmarking.

       +===============+===========================================+
       | Term          | Definition                                |
       +===============+===========================================+
       | *AI Fabric*   | The dedicated Ethernet backend network    |
       |               | interconnecting accelerators (GPUs/XPUs)  |
       |               | for distributed AI training, typically a  |
       |               | non-blocking Clos topology running RoCEv2 |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | *JCT* (Job    | The wall-clock duration from start to     |
       | Completion    | completion of a training job, inclusive   |
       | Time)         | of all computation and communication      |
       |               | phases                                    |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | *DUT Fabric*  | All leaf switches, spine switches,        |
       |               | superspine switches (if applicable), and  |
       |               | interconnecting links forming the AI      |
       |               | training fabric                           |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | *Roofline     | Theoretical minimum JCT assuming perfect  |
       | JCT*          | (zero-contention) network behavior        |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | *JCT Ratio*   | Measured JCT / Roofline JCT; 1.0 = no     |
       |               | network overhead; >1.0 = fabric           |
       |               | inefficiency                              |



Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | *BusBW* (Bus  | Effective per-accelerator throughput      |
       | Bandwidth)    | during a collective: (data_size x         |
       |               | algo_factor) / time                       |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | *QP* (Queue   | RDMA communication endpoint (Send Queue + |
       | Pair)         | Receive Queue); multiple QPs per src-dst  |
       |               | pair increase ECMP entropy                |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | *Incast       | Ratio of senders to receivers (e.g., N:1  |
       | Ratio*        | incast)                                   |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | *MMR* (Max-   | Flow count on most-loaded link / average  |
       | Mean Ratio)   | flow count; quantifies ECMP imbalance     |
       |               | (1.0 = perfect)                           |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | *PFC Pause    | Single PFC PAUSE frame transmitted on a   |
       | Event*        | priority class                            |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | *ECN Marking  | % of packets marked with Congestion       |
       | Ratio*        | Experienced (CE) over a measurement       |
       |               | interval                                  |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | *Collective   | Coordinated cross-accelerator             |
       | Operation*    | communication: AllReduce, AlltoAll,       |
       |               | AllGather                                 |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | *DCQCN*       | Data Center Quantized Congestion          |
       |               | Notification: ECN + PFC for end-to-end    |
       |               | congestion control with RoCEv2            |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | *Packet       | Load balancing distributing individual    |
       | Spray*        | packets across all ECMP paths; maximizes  |
       |               | utilization but may cause reordering      |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | *DLB/Flowlet* | Dynamic Load Balancing using flowlet      |
       |               | detection; reroutes traffic at flow idle  |
       |               | gaps                                      |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | *Zero-Impact  | Sub-microsecond path convergence upon     |
       | Failover*     | link/switch failure with no measurable    |
       |               | JCT impact                                |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | *UET* (Ultra  | Connectionless RDMA transport defined by  |
       | Ethernet      | UEC Spec 1.0; designed as next-generation |
       | Transport)    | replacement for RoCEv2                    |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | *PDC* (Packet | Ephemeral, connectionless UET transport   |



Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


       | Delivery      | endpoint; analogous to but distinct from  |
       | Context)      | an RDMA QP                                |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | *ROD*         | Reliable Ordered Delivery: UET service    |
       |               | semantically equivalent to RoCEv2 RC mode |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | *RUD*         | Reliable Unordered Delivery: UET service  |
       |               | enabling native packet spray without      |
       |               | receiver reorder buffer overhead          |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | *RUDI*        | Reliable Unordered Delivery for           |
       |               | Idempotent operations; simplified         |
       |               | retransmission for RDMA Writes            |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | *UUD*         | Unreliable Unordered Delivery: best-      |
       |               | effort UET service for telemetry/         |
       |               | speculative operations                    |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | *LLR* (Link   | Optional UEC per-hop error recovery (sub- |
       | Layer Retry)  | microsecond) at the Ethernet link layer   |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | *Packet       | Optional UEC enhancement; congested       |
       | Trimming*     | switches transmit packet header only      |
       |               | instead of dropping the full packet       |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | *CBFC*        | Optional UEC per-destination flow         |
       | (Credit-Based | control; alternative to PFC that avoids   |
       | Flow Control) | head-of-line blocking                     |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | *UEC Profile* | Defined UET feature subset: AI Base, AI   |
       |               | Full, or HPC                              |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | *Entropy      | Explicit per-packet UET field for ECMP    |
       | Value*        | path selection; improves multipath        |
       |               | utilization vs. 5-tuple hashing           |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+

                    Table 2: Terminology and Definitions

3.  Test Topology and Architecture

3.1.  Reference Fabric Topologies

   Three reference topologies are defined.  All tests MUST specify which
   topology is used.  Results obtained under different topologies are
   NOT directly comparable without normalization.





Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


3.1.1.  Topology A: 2-Tier Clos (Leaf-Spine)

   +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
   | Spine1 | | Spine2 | | Spine3 | | SpineN |
   +--++--+  +--++--+  +--++--+  +--++--+
      ||         ||         ||         ||
      ||   Full Mesh Interconnect       ||
      ||   (ECMP / DLB / Spray)        ||
      ||         ||         ||         ||
   +--++--+  +--++--+  +--++--+  +--++--+
   | Leaf 1 | | Leaf 2 | | Leaf 3 | | Leaf N |
   +--++--+  +--++--+  +--++--+  +--++--+
      ||         ||         ||         ||
   [GPU/XPU] [GPU/XPU] [GPU/XPU] [GPU/XPU]
   Hosts w/  Hosts w/  Hosts w/  Hosts w/
   RoCEv2 NIC            RoCEv2 NIC

               Figure 1: Topology A: 2-Tier Clos (Leaf-Spine)

   The DUT boundary encompasses all leaf and spine switches and their
   interconnecting links.  Traffic generators or actual GPU hosts
   connect at the leaf layer.

3.1.2.  Topology B: 3-Tier Clos (Leaf-Spine-Superspine)

   For clusters exceeding thousands of accelerators, a superspine layer
   is added.  Each pod consists of a leaf-spine fabric; pods
   interconnect via superspine switches.  This topology scales to
   32,000+ accelerators at 800GbE with current-generation ASICs.  The
   DUT boundary encompasses all three tiers.

3.1.3.  Topology C: Rail-Optimized



















Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


                          SPINE LAYER
   +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
   | Spine1 | | Spine2 | | Spine3 | | SpineN |
   +--+--+--+ +--+--+--+ +--+--+--+ +--+--+--+
    |     Full Mesh Interconnect (ECMP/Spray)  |
   +--+--+--+ +--+--+--+ +--+--+--+ +--+--+--+
   | Rail-0 | | Rail-1 | | Rail-2 | | Rail-7 |  RAIL (LEAF) LAYER
   |  Leaf  | |  Leaf  | |  Leaf  | |  Leaf  |  one switch per NIC
   +--+--+--+ +--+--+--+ +--+--+--+ +--+--+--+
     |   |       |   |       |   |      |   |
   NIC-0 NIC-0 NIC-1 NIC-1 NIC-2 NIC-2 NIC-7 NIC-7
     |   |       |   |       |   |      |   |
   +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
   | Host A | | Host B | | Host C | | Host D |  GPU HOSTS
   | GPU[0] | | GPU[0] | | GPU[0] | | GPU[0] |  (each host has
   | GPU[1] | | GPU[1] | | GPU[1] | | GPU[1] |   8 NICs, one
   |  ...   | |  ...   | |  ...   | |  ...   |   per rail)
   | GPU[7] | | GPU[7] | | GPU[7] | | GPU[7] |
   +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ +--------+
   |<------ Rail-0 ------->|         |<-Rail-7->|

                    Figure 2: Topology C: Rail-Optimized

   In rail-optimized topologies, each NIC on a multi-NIC host connects
   to a dedicated leaf switch ("rail"), co-optimizing network locality
   with the collective communication library (NCCL/RCCL).  The DUT
   boundary and rail mapping MUST be fully documented.

3.2.  Device Under Test (DUT) Identification

    +==============+=========================+=======================+
    | Parameter    | Description             | Example               |
    +==============+=========================+=======================+
    | Switch       | Vendor name, product    | Vendor Family Model   |
    | Vendor/Model | family, model number    |                       |
    +--------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
    | Switch ASIC  | Silicon vendor, ASIC    | Silicon Vendor ASIC   |
    |              | family, revision        | Family Rev            |
    +--------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
    | NOS Version  | Network operating       | NOS Name Version      |
    |              | system name and version |                       |
    +--------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
    | Port Speed   | Per-port line rate      | 400GbE, 800GbE        |
    +--------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
    | Buffer       | Shared/dedicated, total | 32MB shared + 16MB    |
    | Architecture | buffer per ASIC/port    | VOQ per port          |
    +--------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
    | Optics/      | Transceiver type, cable | OSFP 400G-DR4, DAC 3m |



Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


    | Cables       | type and length         | copper                |
    +--------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
    | NIC Vendor/  | RDMA NIC vendor, model, | NIC Vendor Model      |
    | Model        | firmware                | Speed                 |
    +--------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
    | NIC Firmware | NIC firmware version    | Firmware Version      |
    +--------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+
    | Host Config  | OS, CCL lib version,    | OS Version, CCL       |
    |              | driver, BIOS settings   | Version, OFED Version |
    +--------------+-------------------------+-----------------------+

                  Table 3: DUT Identification Parameters

3.3.  Traffic Generator Requirements

3.3.1.  Mandatory Functional Capabilities

   The traffic generator MUST support: RoCEv2 transport emulation (QP
   establishment, RDMA Write/Read, ECN processing, DCQCN rate control);
   configurable QP scaling (1-256 QPs per source-destination pair);
   programmable collective communication patterns (AllReduce, AlltoAll,
   AllGather with configurable message sizes); and nanosecond-precision
   timestamping.

3.3.2.  Minimum Measurement Accuracy Requirements

       +=========================+=================================+
       | Parameter               | Minimum Requirement             |
       +=========================+=================================+
       | Timestamp accuracy      | <= 100 nanoseconds              |
       +-------------------------+---------------------------------+
       | Frame rate accuracy     | +/- 0.1% of specified rate      |
       +-------------------------+---------------------------------+
       | QP scaling range        | 1 to 256 QPs per src-dst pair   |
       +-------------------------+---------------------------------+
       | Message size range      | 1 KB to 8 GB                    |
       +-------------------------+---------------------------------+
       | Flow counter resolution | Per-flow byte and packet counts |
       +-------------------------+---------------------------------+
       | Loss measurement        | 0 ppm resolution                |
       +-------------------------+---------------------------------+
       | Burst generation        | 1-1000 frames at line rate      |
       +-------------------------+---------------------------------+

             Table 4: Minimum Measurement Accuracy Requirements






Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


3.3.3.  Acceptable Implementations

   Qualifying platforms: (a) dedicated hardware traffic generators at
   line-rate RDMA emulation meeting the accuracy requirements of
   Section 3.3.2, or (b) instrumented GPU clusters with RDMA tooling
   with fully documented host configuration.  When GPU clusters are
   used, any non-fabric overhead MUST be quantified and reported
   separately.

4.  KPI Framework and Metrics Taxonomy

      Target values in this section are NON-NORMATIVE illustrative
      reference points derived from current industry practice.  They do
      NOT constitute benchmarking acceptance criteria.  Per BMWG
      charter, defining acceptance criteria is explicitly out of scope.
      Implementers MAY use these values as contextual references; they
      MUST NOT be used as pass/fail thresholds.

4.1.  Primary KPIs

   +============+===============+====================+=================+
   | KPI        | Unit          | Definition         | Reference       |
   |            |               |                    | Target (Non-    |
   |            |               |                    | Normative)      |
   +============+===============+====================+=================+
   | Job        | seconds       | Wall-clock time    | Minimize        |
   | Completion |               | for benchmark      |                 |
   | Time (JCT) |               | iteration          |                 |
   |            |               | (compute +         |                 |
   |            |               | communication)     |                 |
   +------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
   | JCT Ratio  | dimensionless | Measured JCT /     | <= 1.05 (<=     |
   |            |               | Roofline JCT       | 1.15            |
   |            |               |                    | acceptable)     |
   +------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
   | Bus        | Gbps/         | Effective per-     | >= 90% of NIC   |
   | Bandwidth  | accelerator   | accelerator        | line rate       |
   | (BusBW)    |               | throughput         | (intra-pod)     |
   |            |               | during             |                 |
   |            |               | collective         |                 |
   +------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
   | Aggregate  | Tbps          | Total fabric       | >= 95% of       |
   | Throughput |               | goodput during     | bisection BW    |
   |            |               | collective         |                 |
   |            |               | phase              |                 |
   +------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
   | Packet     | ppm           | Frames lost        | 0 ppm           |
   | Drop Rate  |               | end-to-end not     | (lossless)      |



Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


   |            |               | retransmitted      |                 |
   +------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+
   | Tail       | us            | 99th/99.9th        | Minimize        |
   | Latency    |               | percentile one-    |                 |
   | (P99/      |               | way fabric         |                 |
   | P99.9)     |               | latency            |                 |
   +------------+---------------+--------------------+-----------------+

                           Table 5: Primary KPIs

4.2.  Secondary KPIs

    +================+===============+===============================+
    | KPI            | Unit          | Definition                    |
    +================+===============+===============================+
    | ECN Marking    | %             | Percentage of packets marked  |
    | Ratio          |               | CE over measurement interval  |
    +----------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
    | PFC Pause      | events/sec    | Rate of PFC PAUSE frames per  |
    | Count          |               | priority per port             |
    +----------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
    | PFC Pause      | us            | Cumulative time a port is in  |
    | Duration       |               | PFC-paused state per interval |
    +----------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
    | RDMA           | retx/sec      | NIC-level retransmissions due |
    | Retransmission |               | to timeouts or NAKs           |
    | Rate           |               |                               |
    +----------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
    | ECMP Imbalance | dimensionless | Max-Mean Ratio of flow counts |
    | (MMR)          |               | across parallel uplinks       |
    +----------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
    | Jain Fairness  | 0.0-1.0       | Fairness of traffic           |
    | Index (JFI)    |               | distribution; 1.0 = perfect   |
    +----------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
    | Queue Depth    | bytes or      | 95th percentile and maximum   |
    | (P95/Max)      | cells         | egress queue occupancy per    |
    |                |               | port                          |
    +----------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
    | Congestion     | us            | Time from congestion onset to |
    | Control        |               | DCQCN rate stabilization      |
    | Convergence    |               |                               |
    +----------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
    | Out-of-Order   | pkt/sec       | Packets delivered out of      |
    | Packet Rate    |               | sequence (relevant for packet |
    |                |               | spray)                        |
    +----------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
    | CTS/ACK Delay  | us            | Delay for control messages    |
    |                |               | (Clear-to-Send, ACKs)         |



Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


    +----------------+---------------+-------------------------------+

                         Table 6: Secondary KPIs

4.3.  Fabric Health Indicators

    +==================+=========+===================================+
    | Indicator        | Unit    | Definition                        |
    +==================+=========+===================================+
    | Switch CPU       | %       | Average and peak CPU usage on DUT |
    | Utilization      |         | control plane during test         |
    +------------------+---------+-----------------------------------+
    | Switch Memory    | %       | Average and peak memory usage,    |
    | Utilization      |         | including FIB/MAC table occupancy |
    +------------------+---------+-----------------------------------+
    | FIB/Route        | ms      | Time to converge routing after    |
    | Convergence Time |         | topology change                   |
    +------------------+---------+-----------------------------------+
    | Link Flap Count  | events  | Spurious link state changes       |
    |                  |         | during test period                |
    +------------------+---------+-----------------------------------+
    | CRC/FCS Error    | errors/ | Physical layer errors indicating  |
    | Rate             | sec     | cable or optics issues            |
    +------------------+---------+-----------------------------------+
    | Power            | Watts   | Per-switch and per-port power     |
    | Consumption      |         | draw under test load              |
    +------------------+---------+-----------------------------------+

                    Table 7: Fabric Health Indicators

5.  Test Category 1: RDMA Transport Benchmarks

   These tests establish baseline fabric performance for RDMA traffic
   independent of collective communication patterns.  They extend
   [RFC2544] and [RFC8239] methodology for RoCEv2 semantics.

5.1.  Baseline Throughput

   *Objective:* Determine the maximum sustainable RDMA Write throughput
   through the DUT fabric at each tested message size.

   *Procedure:*

   *  Configure N host pairs, each establishing Q Queue Pairs per pair

   *  Initiate RDMA Write operations and measure aggregate goodput

   *  Test MUST run for at least 60 seconds at each rate



Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


   *  Binary search per [RFC2544] Section 26.1 SHOULD be used

   *  Message sizes: 64B, 256B, 1KB, 4KB, 64KB, 256KB, 1MB, 4MB

   *  QP counts: 1, 4, 16, 32 per src-dst pair

   *  Test both unidirectional and bidirectional traffic

   *Reporting:* Report aggregate throughput (Tbps), per-port utilization
   (%), and throughput efficiency (measured/theoretical).  Present as
   table indexed by message size x QP count, and as graph (message size
   on X-axis).

5.2.  Latency Characterization

   *Objective:* Determine one-way and round-trip RDMA latency
   distribution at the throughput rate from Section 5.1.

   *Procedure:*

   *  Inject tagged frames at 60s into a 120s stream (per [RFC2544]
      Section 26.2)

   *  Nanosecond-precision timestamping

   *  MUST report: min, mean, P50, P95, P99, P99.9, max

   *  Repeat at least 20 times; report averages

   *  Test under both zero-load (single QP) and loaded (full fabric
      utilization) conditions

   *Reporting:* Tabulate latency statistics per message size.  Provide
   histogram and CDF plot.  Report latency increase factor (loaded/
   unloaded).

5.3.  Back-to-Back Burst Absorption

   *Objective:* Characterize the DUT fabric's ability to absorb back-to-
   back RDMA bursts without loss, extending [RFC9004] methodology for
   RoCEv2.

   *Procedure:*

   *  Transmit bursts at line rate with minimum inter-frame gap

   *  Increase burst length until first frame loss is detected




Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


   *  Test incast ratios: 2:1, 4:1, 8:1, 16:1, 32:1

   *  Repeat at least 50 times per burst length

   *Reporting:* Report burst absorption capacity (frames and bytes) for
   each message size and incast ratio.  Plot burst capacity vs. incast
   ratio.

6.  Test Category 1A: UEC Transport Protocol Benchmarks

   The Ultra Ethernet Consortium (UEC) Specification 1.0 [UEC-1.0]
   defines UET, a connectionless RDMA transport designed to replace
   RoCEv2 for AI/HPC workloads.  All UET tests use the libfabric API
   [LIBFABRIC] and run on UEC 1.0-compliant NICs.

   The UEC compliance profile (AI Base, AI Full, or HPC) used during
   testing MUST be documented.

6.1.  UET Throughput by Transport Service

   *Objective:* Determine maximum sustainable throughput under each UET
   transport service (ROD, RUD, RUDI, UUD) and compare to RoCEv2 RC/UC
   on the same DUT fabric.

   *Procedure:* Use UEC 1.0-compliant NICs; establish PDCs; use
   libfabric fi_write.  Apply binary search ([RFC2544] Section 26.1).
   Vary PDC counts: 1, 4, 16, 32.  A parallel RoCEv2 test series MUST be
   executed.  Both unidirectional and bidirectional configurations MUST
   be tested.

   *Reporting template:*




















Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


   +============+========+========+========+========+========+========+
   | Metric     | ROD    | RUD    | RUDI   | UUD    | RoCEv2 | RoCEv2 |
   |            |        |        |        |        | RC     | UC     |
   +============+========+========+========+========+========+========+
   | Throughput | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) |
   | @ 1MB      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
   | (Gbps)     |        |        |        |        |        |        |
   +------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
   | Throughput | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) |
   | @ 4MB      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
   | (Gbps)     |        |        |        |        |        |        |
   +------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
   | Efficiency | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) |
   | (% line    |        |        |        |        |        |        |
   | rate)      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
   +------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
   | PDC/QP     | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) |
   | Setup Time |        |        |        |        |        |        |
   | (us)       |        |        |        |        |        |        |
   +------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
   | Max        | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) |
   | Sustained  |        |        |        |        |        |        |
   | PDC/QP     |        |        |        |        |        |        |
   | Count      |        |        |        |        |        |        |
   +------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

               Table 8: UET Throughput by Transport Service

6.2.  UET Latency Characterization

   *Objective:* Measure latency distribution for UET transport services;
   quantify differential vs. RoCEv2, with particular attention to
   connectionless PDC establishment overhead.

   *Procedure:* Measure latency for: (a) steady-state PDC transfers; (b)
   first-packet latency (PDC + first data packet, measuring "data before
   handshake"); (c) zero-load baseline.  Test ROD and RUD separately to
   isolate reordering-related latency.

   *Reporting:* Tabulate latency statistics per (transport_service,
   message_size, load_condition) tuple.  Plot latency CDF for UET ROD,
   UET RUD, and RoCEv2 RC side-by-side.

6.3.  Packet Spray Efficacy Under UET RUD

   *Objective:* Quantify the load balancing improvement achieved by
   UET's native per-packet spray with RUD, which eliminates the receiver
   reorder buffer constraint.



Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


   *Procedure:* Test four configurations:

   *  UET RUD + packet spray

   *  UET ROD + packet spray

   *  RoCEv2 RC + packet spray

   *  RoCEv2 RC + standard ECMP (baseline)

   Measure MMR, JFI, out-of-order delivery rate, retransmission rate,
   and effective goodput.  Vary ECMP paths: 4, 8, 16, 32.

   *Reporting template:*

   +=================+========+========+========+========+=============+
   | Load Balancing  | MMR    | JFI    | OOO    | Retx   | Effective   |
   | Config          |        |        | Rate   | Rate   | Goodput (%) |
   +=================+========+========+========+========+=============+
   | UET RUD +       | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas)      |
   | Packet Spray    |        |        |        |        |             |
   +-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------------+
   | UET ROD +       | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas)      |
   | Packet Spray    |        |        |        |        |             |
   +-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------------+
   | RoCEv2 RC +     | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas)      |
   | Packet Spray    |        |        |        |        |             |
   +-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------------+
   | RoCEv2 RC +     | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas)      |
   | ECMP            |        |        |        |        |             |
   | (baseline)      |        |        |        |        |             |
   +-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------------+
   | UET RUD + DLB/  | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas)      |
   | Flowlet         |        |        |        |        |             |
   +-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------------+

                Table 9: Packet Spray Efficacy Under UET RUD

      UET RUD SHOULD achieve zero host-visible reordering despite per-
      packet spray because the transport layer natively tolerates
      unordered delivery.

6.4.  UET Congestion Control Benchmarks

   *Objective:* Evaluate UET's dual-sided (sender + receiver) congestion
   control under N:1 incast conditions vs. RoCEv2 DCQCN.





Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


   *Procedure:* Measure: (a) incast throughput at N = {2, 4, 8, 16, 32,
   64}; (b) convergence time after doubling active senders (until all
   flows within 10% of fair share); (c) PFC avoidance with PFC disabled
   on the DUT; (d) receiver credit utilization.

   *Reporting:* Tabulate incast throughput, convergence time, peak queue
   depth, PFC event count, and packet drop rate for UET vs. DCQCN per
   incast ratio. *Critical differentiator:* report whether UET achieves
   zero application-visible loss without PFC.

6.5.  Link Layer Enhancement Benchmarks

   *Objective:* Measure performance impact of optional link-layer
   enhancements: LLR, Packet Trimming (PT), and CBFC.

   *Procedure:*

   *  *(a) LLR Retry Latency:* inject controlled bit errors; measure LLR
      retry latency (expected sub-microsecond per hop) vs. transport-
      layer retransmission (~10-100us RTT).  Run with 80% background
      load.

   *  *(b) Packet Trimming Effectiveness:* configure 2:1
      oversubscription bottleneck; measure time from congestion onset to
      first retransmission request, bandwidth saved vs. full-packet
      drops.

   *  *(c) CBFC vs. PFC:* identical N:1 (N=32) incast scenarios; measure
      head-of-line blocking duration (CBFC is per-destination, PFC is
      per-priority), pause propagation hops, and throughput of non-
      congested flows.

   *Reporting:* Before/after comparison table for each enhancement.
   Note which features are hardware-supported vs. software-emulated.

6.6.  UET Collective Communication Performance

   *Objective:* Measure collective communication (AllReduce, AlltoAll,
   AllGather) performance over UET and compare to RoCEv2.

   *Procedure:* Execute the collective benchmark suite from Section 9
   over UET RUD transport using a UEC-compliant collective library.
   Same accelerator count, message sizes, and fabric topology.  Run UET
   RUD + packet spray as primary; UET ROD + ECMP as secondary baseline.

   *Reporting template:*





Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


   +============+======+========+=========+=========+========+========+
   | Collective | Msg  | N      | UET RUD | UET ROD | RoCEv2 | Delta  |
   |            | Size | Accels | BusBW   | BusBW   | RC     | UET/   |
   |            |      |        |         |         | BusBW  | RoCEv2 |
   +============+======+========+=========+=========+========+========+
   | AllReduce  | 1GB  | 128    | (meas)  | (meas)  | (meas) | (meas) |
   +------------+------+--------+---------+---------+--------+--------+
   | AllReduce  | 1GB  | 512    | (meas)  | (meas)  | (meas) | (meas) |
   +------------+------+--------+---------+---------+--------+--------+
   | AlltoAll   | 1GB  | 128    | (meas)  | (meas)  | (meas) | (meas) |
   +------------+------+--------+---------+---------+--------+--------+
   | AllGather  | 1GB  | 128    | (meas)  | (meas)  | (meas) | (meas) |
   +------------+------+--------+---------+---------+--------+--------+

            Table 10: UET Collective Communication Performance

6.7.  UET PDC Scalability and Connection Setup Rate

   *Objective:* Measure PDC establishment rate and maximum concurrent
   PDC count vs. RoCEv2 QP-based connections.

   *Procedure:* (a) PDC establishment rate: initiate PDC creation to M =
   {100, 1000, 10000, 100000} remote endpoints. (b) Data-before-
   handshake: measure first-byte latency for UET vs. RoCEv2 RDMA Write.
   (c) Maximum concurrent PDC count: scale until per-PDC throughput
   drops below 90% of single-PDC rate.  The UEC specification targets up
   to 1 million endpoints.

7.  Test Category 2: Congestion Management

   AI training workloads generate repetitive micro-congestion during the
   back-propagation gradient synchronization phase.

7.1.  ECN Marking Accuracy and Threshold

   *Objective:* Verify that the DUT marks packets with ECN CE at the
   configured threshold with correct granularity.

   *Procedure:* Configure threshold T on DUT egress queue.  Verify: (a)
   no packets marked below T; (b) 100% marked above maximum threshold;
   (c) appropriate WRED/RED probability ramp between thresholds.  Test
   thresholds: low (~100KB), medium (~1MB), high (~5MB).

   *Reporting:* Plot ECN marking probability vs. instantaneous queue
   depth.  Report measured threshold accuracy (deviation from
   configured).





Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


7.2.  PFC Behavior Under Incast

   *Objective:* Characterize DUT's PFC generation behavior under N:1
   incast conditions.

   *Procedure:* Generate N:1 incast at 100% line rate, N = {2, 4, 8, 16,
   32, 64}. Measure PFC PAUSE frame count/sec per hop, PFC PAUSE
   duration per port, PFC storm onset, and end-to-end throughput.  Test
   SHOULD verify correct headroom sizing and PFC watchdog effectiveness.

7.3.  DCQCN Convergence Time

   *Objective:* Measure time for DCQCN to converge to fair-share rate
   after congestion onset.

   *Procedure:* Establish M flows through a common bottleneck.  At T0,
   inject additional M flows (creating 2:1 oversubscription).  Measure
   time until all 2M flows achieve rates within 10% of fair share.
   Repeat for M = {4, 16, 64, 256}. Vary DCQCN parameters and report
   sensitivity.

7.4.  PFC Storm and Deadlock Resilience

   *Objective:* Verify the DUT does not enter PFC deadlock or sustained
   PFC storm under adversarial traffic.

   *Procedure:* Generate cyclic traffic patterns known to cause PFC
   deadlocks.  Run for 300 seconds.  The DUT MUST demonstrate resilience
   via PFC watchdog or architectural immunity (e.g., VOQ-based
   scheduling).

8.  Test Category 3: Load Balancing Efficacy

   Load balancing across parallel fabric paths is critical for AI
   training fabrics because the traffic consists of a small number of
   high-bandwidth, long-lived elephant flows.

8.1.  ECMP Entropy and Polarization

   *Objective:* Quantify traffic polarization under standard ECMP
   hashing for AI training flow patterns.

   *Procedure:* Configure standard 5-tuple ECMP.  Generate traffic with
   Q = {1, 4, 8, 16, 32} QPs per src-dst pair.  Measure per-link
   utilization, MMR, and JFI.  Test with and without BTH-aware hashing.
   Repeat for fabric sizes of 8, 16, 32, and 64 leaf switches.





Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


8.2.  Dynamic Load Balancing (Flowlet)

   *Objective:* Evaluate DUT's flowlet-based DLB performance and compare
   to baseline ECMP.

   *Procedure:* Configure vendor-specific DLB (document algorithm type).
   Generate traffic with Q=4 QPs.  Measure MMR, JFI, per-link
   utilization, out-of-order rate.  Vary flowlet gap timer and report
   sensitivity.

8.3.  Packet Spraying

   *Objective:* Evaluate DUT's per-packet spraying performance and
   quantify the utilization vs. reordering tradeoff.

   *Procedure:* Configure per-packet load balancing.  Measure MMR
   (expected ~1.0), JFI (expected ~1.0), out-of-order rate, and RDMA
   retransmission impact.  If the DUT provides an in-fabric reorder
   buffer, document per Appendix B.

8.4.  Jain Fairness Index Measurement

   *Objective:* Single-number summary of load balancing quality
   comparable across all strategies.

   *Formula:*

   JFI = (Sum LinkTx_i)^2 / (N x Sum LinkTx_i^2)

                   Figure 3: Jain Fairness Index Formula

   where LinkTx_i = transmitted traffic on fabric link i, N = total
   parallel links.  Range: 1/N (worst) to 1.0 (perfect).

   *Reporting:* Report JFI for each load balancing strategy.  Provide
   bar chart comparing ECMP, DLB, and packet spray.

9.  Test Category 4: Collective Communication Benchmarks

   These tests evaluate the fabric's performance under realistic
   collective communication patterns.  Unlike synthetic RDMA tests in
   Section 5 and Section 6, these exercise the full stack including the
   collective library (NCCL [NCCL], RCCL, or equivalent).








Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


9.1.  AllReduce Benchmark

   *Objective:* Measure fabric performance during AllReduce operations
   -- the dominant collective for gradient synchronization in data-
   parallel training.

   *Procedure:*

   *  Message sizes: 1MB, 8MB, 64MB, 256MB, 1GB, 4GB

   *  Accelerator counts: N = {8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024}

   *  Execute at least 100 iterations per (message_size, N) pair

   *  Report average, P50, P95, P99 BusBW

   *  Run under each load balancing strategy (ECMP, DLB, spray)

9.2.  AlltoAll Benchmark

   *Objective:* Measure fabric performance during AlltoAll operations --
   used in Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models and expert parallelism.

   *Procedure:* Execute AlltoAll with same parameters as Section 9.1.
   AlltoAll creates the worst-case congestion scenario: every
   accelerator simultaneously sends to every other.  Report JCT per
   iteration -- the most sensitive indicator of fabric congestion
   management quality.

9.3.  AllGather Benchmark

   *Objective:* Measure fabric performance during AllGather operations
   -- used for parameter distribution in tensor-parallel and pipeline-
   parallel training.

   *Procedure:* Execute AllGather with same parameter sweeps as
   Section 9.1.  Measure BusBW, JCT, and fabric health indicators.

9.4.  Collective Communication Library Bus Bandwidth Summary

   *Reporting template:*










Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


   +=================+========+========+========+========+=============+
   | Load Balancing  | MMR    | JFI    | OOO    | Retx   | Effective   |
   | Config          |        |        | Rate   | Rate   | Goodput (%) |
   +=================+========+========+========+========+=============+
   | UET RUD +       | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas)      |
   | Packet Spray    |        |        |        |        |             |
   +-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------------+
   | UET ROD +       | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas)      |
   | Packet Spray    |        |        |        |        |             |
   +-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------------+
   | RoCEv2 RC +     | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas)      |
   | Packet Spray    |        |        |        |        |             |
   +-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------------+
   | RoCEv2 RC +     | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas)      |
   | ECMP            |        |        |        |        |             |
   | (baseline)      |        |        |        |        |             |
   +-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------------+
   | UET RUD + DLB/  | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas) | (meas)      |
   | Flowlet         |        |        |        |        |             |
   +-----------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------------+

          Table 11: Collective Communication Bus Bandwidth Summary

10.  Test Category 5: Job Completion Time (JCT) Benchmarks

   JCT is the single most important user-facing KPI for AI training
   fabrics, directly determining accelerator utilization and training
   cost.

10.1.  Synthetic JCT Under Controlled Conditions

   *Objective:* Measure JCT for a defined synthetic workload with a
   known computation-to-communication ratio to isolate fabric-induced
   overhead.

   *Procedure:* Define a synthetic training iteration as:

   1.  Computation phase of C milliseconds (simulated sleep or GPU
       compute kernel)

   2.  Communication phase: AllReduce of S bytes across N accelerators










Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


            +=====================+==========================+
            | Parameter           | Values                   |
            +=====================+==========================+
            | Computation time C  | 10ms, 50ms, 100ms, 500ms |
            +---------------------+--------------------------+
            | Message size S      | 256MB, 1GB, 4GB          |
            +---------------------+--------------------------+
            | Accelerator count N | 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024  |
            +---------------------+--------------------------+
            | Iterations          | 1000                     |
            +---------------------+--------------------------+

                 Table 12: Synthetic JCT Test Parameters

   Roofline JCT = Iterations x (C + S x algo_factor / NIC_line_rate)
   JCT Ratio    = Measured_JCT / Roofline_JCT

                      Figure 4: JCT Ratio Calculation

      JCT Ratio < 1.05 = excellent fabric performance; > 1.15 =
      significant fabric-induced overhead.

10.2.  MLPerf-Aligned JCT

   *Objective:* Measure JCT using MLPerf Training benchmark workloads
   [MLPERF] to enable comparison with published industry results.

   *Procedure:* Execute MLPerf Training closed-division workloads (e.g.,
   BERT, ResNet, GPT-3 175B) per MLPerf submission rules.
   Simultaneously capture all fabric KPIs from Section 4.  Report time-
   to-train and/or tokens-per-second.

10.3.  Multi-Tenant JCT Interference

   *Objective:* Quantify JCT impact when multiple training jobs share
   the same fabric.

   *Procedure:* Configure two or more independent training jobs.  Jobs
   SHOULD overlap in spine-layer link usage.  Measure baseline JCT
   (isolated) and contention JCT (simultaneous).

   JCT Interference Factor = Contention_JCT / Baseline_JCT

                     Figure 5: JCT Interference Factor

   Test with spine link overlap: 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%.





Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


11.  Test Category 6: Scale and Convergence

11.1.  Fabric Scale Limits

   *Objective:* Determine the maximum fabric scale at which the DUT
   maintains acceptable KPI performance.

   *Procedure:* Progressively increase active accelerator endpoints from
   N=64 to maximum topology support while running AllReduce
   (Section 9.1, S=1GB).  At each scale point record JCT Ratio, BusBW,
   ECN ratio, PFC count, CPU and memory utilization.  Also measure BGP/
   routing convergence time after clearing all adjacencies (analogous to
   [EVPN-BENCH] Sections 3.10, 3.11, 4.9, 4.10).

11.2.  Link Failure Convergence

   *Objective:* Measure traffic disruption and JCT impact when a fabric
   link fails during active training.

   *Procedure:* With the fabric fully loaded (AllReduce, N=128, S=1GB),
   administratively fail a spine uplink.  Measure:

   *  Duration of packet loss

   *  Packets lost

   *  JCT overhead for the failure iteration vs. steady state

   *  Time for load balancing mechanism to redistribute flows

   Repeat for: leaf uplink failure, spine switch failure, superspine
   link failure (if applicable).  Test under each load balancing
   strategy.

11.3.  Zero-Impact Failover Measurement

   *Objective:* Verify vendor claims of zero-impact or sub-microsecond
   failover.

   *Procedure:* Execute Section 11.2 with nanosecond-precision
   measurement.  A failure is considered "zero-impact" if the measured
   JCT for the failure iteration is within the P99 JCT of steady-state
   iterations.

12.  Test Category 7: Soak and Stability






Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 26]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


12.1.  24-Hour Sustained Load

   *Objective:* Verify DUT fabric stability under sustained AI training
   load over an extended period, following the methodology pattern from
   [EVPN-BENCH] Sections 3.12, 4.11.

   *Procedure:* Configure DUT at maximum validated scale from
   Section 11.1.  Generate bidirectional collective communication
   traffic (alternating AllReduce and AlltoAll).  Run continuously for
   24 hours.  Sample all KPIs from Section 4 every 60 seconds.

   There SHOULD NOT be any memory leaks, crashes, or CPU spikes.  Any
   anomaly MUST be reported with timestamp and duration.

   *Reporting:* Time-series plots of JCT Ratio, BusBW, ECN ratio, PFC
   count, CPU, and memory over the 24-hour period.  Report standard
   deviation of JCT Ratio (stability metric).

12.2.  Resource Leak Detection

   *Objective:* Detect memory leaks, handle exhaustion, or gradual
   performance degradation in DUT software.

   *Procedure:* Record per-process memory usage at T=0, T=1h, T=6h,
   T=12h, T=24h.  Compute linear regression slope of memory usage over
   time.  A slope exceeding *1MB/hour* for any process indicates a
   potential memory leak and MUST be reported.  Also monitor forwarding-
   plane counter wraparounds and hardware table occupancy trends.

13.  Reporting Format

   Test reports MUST include the following sections:

   1.  *DUT Identification:* Complete parameters from Section 3.2 for
       all fabric components.

   2.  *Test Topology:* Diagram and description per Section 3.1,
       including physical cabling.

   3.  *Test Configuration:* All DUT configuration parameters: QoS
       policies (ECN thresholds, PFC headroom, DCQCN parameters), load
       balancing mode, buffer allocation, and vendor-specific tuning.









Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 27]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


   4.  *Host Configuration:* Complete host stack description per
       Section 3.2 including NIC firmware, driver, collective library
       version, and any tuning.  For UET tests, additionally report: UEC
       compliance profile, libfabric provider version, NIC UEC firmware
       version, and enabled optional link-layer features (LLR, Packet
       Trimming, PRI, CBFC).

   5.  *Test Results:* For each test from Section 5 through Section 12,
       provide specified tables, graphs, and statistical summaries.  For
       Section 6 tests, results MUST include side-by-side UET vs. RoCEv2
       comparison data on the identical DUT fabric.

   6.  *Anomalies:* Any deviations from specified procedures, test
       failures, or unexpected behaviors MUST be documented.

   7.  *Repeatability Statement:* Report iteration count and coefficient
       of variation (std deviation / mean) for each test's primary
       metric.  CV below 5% is RECOMMENDED for test validity.

14.  Security Considerations

   This document defines benchmarking methodologies for controlled
   laboratory environments and does not introduce new security
   mechanisms or protocols.

   Per [RFC6815], the tests defined herein MUST NOT be performed on
   production networks.  The use of dedicated test IP address ranges per
   [RFC2544] Appendix C (198.18.0.0/15) is RECOMMENDED to prevent
   accidental interaction with production infrastructure.

   When RDMA/RoCEv2 traffic is used, the test environment SHOULD be
   isolated from production RDMA fabrics to prevent QP number space
   collisions or inadvertent PFC propagation.  When UET traffic is used
   (Section 6), the test environment MUST ensure that UDP port 4793
   traffic does not leak to production networks and that PDC identifier
   spaces are isolated.  UET's optional transport security sub-layer
   (TSS) SHOULD NOT be enabled during performance benchmarking unless
   transport security overhead is explicitly being measured.

15.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.

16.  References

16.1.  Normative References





Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 28]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


   [RFC1242]  Bradner, S., "Benchmarking Terminology for Network
              Interconnection Devices", RFC 1242, DOI 10.17487/RFC1242,
              July 1991, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1242>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2544]  Bradner, S. and J. McQuaid, "Benchmarking Methodology for
              Network Interconnect Devices", RFC 2544,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2544, March 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2544>.

   [RFC2889]  Mandeville, R. and J. Perser, "Benchmarking Methodology
              for LAN Switching Devices", RFC 2889,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2889, August 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2889>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8238]  Avramov, L. and J. Rapp, "Data Center Benchmarking
              Terminology", RFC 8238, DOI 10.17487/RFC8238, August 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8238>.

   [RFC8239]  Avramov, L. and J. Rapp, "Data Center Benchmarking
              Methodology", RFC 8239, DOI 10.17487/RFC8239, August 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8239>.

   [RFC9004]  Morton, A., "Updates for the Back-to-Back Frame Benchmark
              in RFC 2544", RFC 9004, DOI 10.17487/RFC9004, May 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9004>.

   [UEC-1.0]  Ultra Ethernet Consortium, "Ultra Ethernet Transport (UET)
              Specification 1.0", June 2025,
              <https://ultraethernet.org>.

16.2.  Informative References

   [DCQCN-PAPER]
              Zhu, Y., "Congestion Control for Large-Scale RDMA
              Deployments", DOI ACM SIGCOMM 2015, 2015,
              <https://doi.org/ACM SIGCOMM 2015>.






Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 29]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


   [EVPN-BENCH]
              Jacob, S. and K. Tiruveedhula, "Benchmarking Methodology
              for EVPN and PBB-EVPN", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-11, August 2023,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-
              evpntest-11>.

   [LIBFABRIC]
              OpenFabrics Interfaces Working Group, "libfabric: Open
              Fabric Interfaces", n.d.,
              <https://ofiwg.github.io/libfabric/>.

   [LLM-BENCH]
              Gaikwad, et al, "Benchmarking Methodology for Large
              Language Model Serving", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-gaikwad-llm-benchmarking-methodology-00, January
              2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
              gaikwad-llm-benchmarking-methodology-00>.

   [META-ROCE]
              Gangidi, A., "RDMA over Ethernet for Distributed AI
              Training at Meta Scale", DOI ACM SIGCOMM 2024, 2024,
              <https://doi.org/ACM SIGCOMM 2024>.

   [MLPERF]   MLCommons, "MLPerf Training Benchmark Suite", n.d.,
              <https://mlcommons.org>.

   [NCCL]     NVIDIA, "NVIDIA Collective Communications Library (NCCL)",
              n.d., <https://developer.nvidia.com/nccl>.

   [RFC6815]  Bradner, S., Dubray, K., McQuaid, J., and A. Morton,
              "Applicability Statement for RFC 2544: Use on Production
              Networks Considered Harmful", RFC 6815,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6815, November 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6815>.

Appendix A.  KPI-to-Test Mapping Summary

   +===============+=========+====================+====================+
   | KPI           | Test    | Measurement Method | Reporting Unit     |
   |               | Section |                    |                    |
   +===============+=========+====================+====================+
   | Throughput    | Section | Binary search,     | Tbps, % line       |
   | Rate          | 5.1     | zero-loss          | rate               |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | Latency (P99) | Section | Tagged frame,      | us                 |
   |               | 5.2     | loaded / unloaded  |                    |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+



Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 30]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


   | Burst         | Section | Max burst without  | frames, bytes      |
   | Absorption    | 5.3     | loss               |                    |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | ECN Accuracy  | Section | Queue depth vs.    | threshold          |
   |               | 7.1     | marking            | deviation %        |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | PFC Behavior  | Section | Incast sweep       | PAUSE events/      |
   |               | 7.2     | N=2..64            | sec, duration      |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | DCQCN         | Section | Rate stabilization | us                 |
   | Convergence   | 7.3     | after onset        |                    |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | PFC Deadlock  | Section | Cyclic adversarial | observed/          |
   |               | 7.4     | traffic            | reported,          |
   |               |         |                    | watchdog events    |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | ECMP          | Section | MMR, JFI per QP    | dimensionless      |
   | Imbalance     | 8.1     | count              | ratios             |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | DLB Efficacy  | Section | Throughput delta   | %, out-of-order    |
   |               | 8.2     | vs. ECMP           | rate               |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | Spray         | Section | JFI,               | dimensionless,     |
   | Efficacy      | 8.3     | retransmission     | retx/sec           |
   |               |         | rate               |                    |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | AllReduce     | Section | CCL benchmark      | Gbps per           |
   | BusBW         | 9.1     |                    | accelerator        |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | AlltoAll JCT  | Section | CCL benchmark      | seconds per        |
   |               | 9.2     |                    | iteration          |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | AllGather     | Section | CCL benchmark      | Gbps per           |
   | BusBW         | 9.3     |                    | accelerator        |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | Synthetic JCT | Section | Measured /         | dimensionless      |
   | Ratio         | 10.1    | Roofline           |                    |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | MLPerf JCT    | Section | Time-to-train      | minutes,           |
   |               | 10.2    |                    | tokens/sec         |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | Multi-Tenant  | Section | Contention /       | interference       |
   | Impact        | 10.3    | Baseline JCT       | factor             |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | Scale Limit   | Section | Max N with JCT     | accelerator        |
   |               | 11.1    | Ratio              | count              |
   |               |         | characterized      |                    |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+



Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 31]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


   | Failover Time | Section | Loss duration on   | us                 |
   |               | 11.2    | link fail          |                    |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | 24h Stability | Section | JCT Ratio std      | dimensionless      |
   |               | 12.1    | deviation          |                    |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | UET           | Section | Binary search per  | Gbps, % line       |
   | Throughput    | 6.1     | transport service  | rate               |
   | (RUD)         |         |                    |                    |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | UET First-    | Section | PDC establish +    | us                 |
   | Packet        | 6.2     | first data         |                    |
   | Latency       |         |                    |                    |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | UET Spray     | Section | JFI/MMR under RUD  | dimensionless,     |
   | Efficacy      | 6.3     | spray              | OOO rate           |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | UET PFC-Free  | Section | Incast without PFC | %, retx            |
   | Loss Rate     | 6.4     | enabled            | overhead           |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | LLR Retry     | Section | Per-hop error      | nanoseconds        |
   | Latency       | 6.5     | recovery time      |                    |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | Packet        | Section | BW saved during    | % bandwidth        |
   | Trimming      | 6.5     | congestion         |                    |
   | Savings       |         |                    |                    |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | CBFC vs PFC   | Section | Head-of-line       | us                 |
   | HOL Blocking  | 6.5     | blocking duration  |                    |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | UET           | Section | AllReduce/AlltoAll | Gbps per           |
   | Collective    | 6.6     | over UET           | accelerator        |
   | BusBW         |         |                    |                    |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | PDC           | Section | Sustained PDC      | PDCs/second        |
   | Establishment | 6.7     | creation rate      |                    |
   | Rate          |         |                    |                    |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | Max           | Section | Scale limit per    | count              |
   | Concurrent    | 6.7     | NIC                |                    |
   | PDCs          |         |                    |                    |
   +---------------+---------+--------------------+--------------------+

                   Table 13: KPI-to-Test Mapping Summary







Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 32]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


Appendix B.  ASIC Feature Categories (Informational)

   This appendix identifies ASIC feature categories relevant to AI
   fabric performance.  Implementers SHOULD document which categories
   are present and enabled on the DUT.  Specific vendor names are
   intentionally omitted.













































Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 33]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


   +==============+================+===============+==================+
   | Feature      | Sub-types      | Relevance to  | What to Report   |
   | Category     |                | AI Fabric     |                  |
   +==============+================+===============+==================+
   | Aggregate    | ASIC-level     | Cluster       | Total Tbps; per- |
   | Switching BW | capacity       | scale,        | port speed       |
   |              |                | bisection BW  | (400/800GbE)     |
   +--------------+----------------+---------------+------------------+
   | Buffer       | Shared, VOQ,   | Microburst    | Buffer type;     |
   | Architecture | Cut-through    | absorption,   | total bytes;     |
   |              |                | PFC behavior, | shared vs.       |
   |              |                | lossless      | dedicated split; |
   |              |                | operation     | per-port/queue   |
   |              |                |               | allocation       |
   +--------------+----------------+---------------+------------------+
   | Packet       | Per-flow, Per- | ECMP load     | Supported        |
   | Distribution | packet,        | balancing     | granularities;   |
   |              | Flowlet        | quality and   | in-fabric        |
   |              |                | reordering    | reorder buffer   |
   |              |                | risk          | (yes/no)         |
   +--------------+----------------+---------------+------------------+
   | Congestion   | ECN marking,   | DCQCN         | ECN granularity  |
   | Control      | PFC, DCQCN     | convergence   | (port/queue/     |
   |              |                | and lossless  | VOQ); PFC        |
   |              |                | behavior      | priorities;      |
   |              |                |               | DCQCN parameter  |
   |              |                |               | range            |
   +--------------+----------------+---------------+------------------+
   | Adaptive     | Flowlet, ECMP, | Load          | Algorithm type;  |
   | Routing      | Spray,         | balancing     | flowlet gap      |
   |              | Topology-aware | quality under | timer range;     |
   |              |                | collective    | topology-aware   |
   |              |                | patterns      | support          |
   +--------------+----------------+---------------+------------------+
   | Telemetry    | Per-port, Per- | Required for  | Monitoring       |
   |              | queue, Per-    | KPI           | granularity;     |
   |              | flow           | measurement   | streaming        |
   |              |                | during        | interval; INT    |
   |              |                | benchmarking  | support          |
   +--------------+----------------+---------------+------------------+
   | Cluster      | 2-tier, 3-tier | Applicable    | Max cluster size |
   | Scale        |                | topology      | per topology;    |
   | Support      |                | scales        | ASIC count       |
   +--------------+----------------+---------------+------------------+

                    Table 14: ASIC Feature Categories





Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 34]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


   All values MUST be reported based on vendor documentation or measured
   capability.  Additional DUT capabilities affecting benchmark results
   MUST also be documented.

Appendix C.  RoCEv2 Test Frame Format

      +========+===================+======+========================+
      | Offset | Field             | Size | Value / Description    |
      +========+===================+======+========================+
      | 00     | Ethernet Dst MAC  | 6B   | DUT next-hop MAC       |
      +--------+-------------------+------+------------------------+
      | 06     | Ethernet Src MAC  | 6B   | Test equipment MAC     |
      +--------+-------------------+------+------------------------+
      | 12     | EtherType         | 2B   | 0x8100 (802.1Q) or     |
      |        |                   |      | 0x0800 (IPv4)          |
      +--------+-------------------+------+------------------------+
      | 14     | VLAN Tag          | 4B   | PCP=3 (RoCEv2          |
      |        | (optional)        |      | priority), VID         |
      +--------+-------------------+------+------------------------+
      | 18     | IPv4 Header       | 20B  | DSCP=26 (ECN-capable), |
      |        |                   |      | Proto=17 (UDP)         |
      +--------+-------------------+------+------------------------+
      | 38     | UDP Header        | 8B   | DstPort=4791 (RoCEv2), |
      |        |                   |      | SrcPort=var            |
      +--------+-------------------+------+------------------------+
      | 46     | BTH (Base         | 12B  | OpCode, DstQP, PSN,    |
      |        | Transport Header) |      | P_Key                  |
      +--------+-------------------+------+------------------------+
      | 58     | RETH (if Write)   | 16B  | VA, R_Key, DMA Length  |
      +--------+-------------------+------+------------------------+
      | 74     | Payload           | var  | Test data              |
      |        |                   |      | (incrementing octets)  |
      +--------+-------------------+------+------------------------+
      | var    | ICRC              | 4B   | Invariant CRC          |
      +--------+-------------------+------+------------------------+
      | var+4  | FCS               | 4B   | Ethernet Frame Check   |
      |        |                   |      | Sequence               |
      +--------+-------------------+------+------------------------+

                    Table 15: RoCEv2 Test Frame Format

Appendix D.  UET (Ultra Ethernet Transport) Frame Format

   UET runs over UDP/IP using IANA-assigned destination port 4793.







Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 35]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


     +========+==================+======+===========================+
     | Offset | Field            | Size | Value / Description       |
     +========+==================+======+===========================+
     | 00     | Ethernet Dst MAC | 6B   | DUT next-hop MAC          |
     +--------+------------------+------+---------------------------+
     | 06     | Ethernet Src MAC | 6B   | Test equipment MAC        |
     +--------+------------------+------+---------------------------+
     | 12     | EtherType        | 2B   | 0x8100 (802.1Q) or 0x0800 |
     |        |                  |      | (IPv4)                    |
     +--------+------------------+------+---------------------------+
     | 14     | VLAN Tag         | 4B   | PCP=3 (UET priority       |
     |        | (optional)       |      | class), VID               |
     +--------+------------------+------+---------------------------+
     | 18     | IPv4 Header      | 20B  | DSCP=26, ECN=ECT(0),      |
     |        |                  |      | Proto=17 (UDP)            |
     +--------+------------------+------+---------------------------+
     | 38     | UDP Header       | 8B   | DstPort=4793 (UET),       |
     |        |                  |      | SrcPort=entropy           |
     +--------+------------------+------+---------------------------+
     | 46     | UET Common       | 16B  | Version, OpCode, PDC ID,  |
     |        | Header           |      | PSN, Entropy Value, Flags |
     +--------+------------------+------+---------------------------+
     | 62     | SES Header       | var  | Operation-specific        |
     |        | (Semantic)       |      | (Write/Send/etc.)         |
     +--------+------------------+------+---------------------------+
     | var    | PDS Header (Pkt  | var  | Sequence, Credit, Ack     |
     |        | Delivery)        |      | fields                    |
     +--------+------------------+------+---------------------------+
     | var    | CMS Header       | var  | ECN feedback, rate        |
     |        | (Cong.  Mgmt)    |      | signals                   |
     +--------+------------------+------+---------------------------+
     | var    | Payload          | var  | Application data          |
     +--------+------------------+------+---------------------------+
     | var    | ICRC             | 4B   | Invariant CRC             |
     +--------+------------------+------+---------------------------+
     | var+4  | FCS              | 4B   | Ethernet Frame Check      |
     |        |                  |      | Sequence                  |
     +--------+------------------+------+---------------------------+

                        Table 16: UET Frame Format











Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 36]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


D.1.  Key Differences from RoCEv2

   +==============+==============+===============+=====================+
   | Field        | RoCEv2 Value | UET Value     | Notes               |
   +==============+==============+===============+=====================+
   | UDP Dst      | 4791         | 4793          | IANA-assigned for   |
   | Port         |              |               | each protocol       |
   +--------------+--------------+---------------+---------------------+
   | Transport    | QP Number    | PDC ID        | Connectionless in   |
   | Endpoint     | (24b)        | (variable)    | UET                 |
   +--------------+--------------+---------------+---------------------+
   | Sequence     | PSN (24b)    | PSN           | Larger range for    |
   | Number       |              | (extended)    | RUD OOO tolerance   |
   +--------------+--------------+---------------+---------------------+
   | Congestion   | ECN bits     | ECN + CMS     | Sender + receiver   |
   | Signal       | only         | sub-header    | signals in UET      |
   +--------------+--------------+---------------+---------------------+
   | Entropy      | UDP src port | Explicit      | Deterministic spray |
   | Source       |              | entropy field | in UET              |
   +--------------+--------------+---------------+---------------------+
   | Ordering     | Always in-   | Per-service   | RUD allows OOO      |
   | Guarantee    | order (RC)   | (ROD/RUD)     | delivery            |
   +--------------+--------------+---------------+---------------------+
   | Min Header   | ~74B (Write) | ~78B (est.    | Slight increase for |
   | Overhead     |              | Write)        | sub-layer headers   |
   +--------------+--------------+---------------+---------------------+

                    Table 17: RoCEv2 vs. UET Comparison

   1.  *UDP Destination Port:* UET uses port 4793 vs. RoCEv2 port 4791.

   2.  *Entropy Value:* Explicit entropy field for ECMP path selection.
       Test equipment MUST vary this field to achieve uniform path
       distribution.

   3.  *Transport Service Indicator:* Header encodes transport service
       (ROD/RUD/RUDI/UUD).  Tests MUST set this to match the service
       being benchmarked.

   4.  *PDC Identifier:* Connectionless PDC ID replaces RoCEv2's
       Destination QP.  Test equipment MUST track PDC lifecycle for
       accurate measurement.

   5.  *Layered Sub-Headers:* UET uses four sub-layers (SES, PDS, CMS,
       TSS) with variable-length headers.  Implementations MUST follow
       [UEC-1.0] Section 4 for wire format details.





Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 37]

Internet-Draft               AI Fabric Bench               February 2026


   6.  *Optional Link Layer Headers:* When LLR, Packet Trimming, or PRI
       features are enabled, additional link-layer framing may be
       present.  Test equipment MUST be configured to recognize and
       parse these.

Acknowledgments

   Contributions and review are solicited from the BMWG mailing list
   (bmwg@ietf.org).  The BMWG chairs and Area Director are identified at
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/bmwg/about/.

Authors' Addresses

   Fernando Calabria
   Cisco
   Email: fcalabri@cisco.com


   Carlos Pignataro
   Blue Fern Consulting
   Email: carlos@bluefern.consulting


   Qin Wu
   Huawei
   Email: bill.wu@huawei.com


   Giuseppe Fioccola
   Huawei
   Email: giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com




















Calabria, et al.         Expires 30 August 2026                [Page 38]
